Patent Collaboration and Analysis System

ABSTRACT

An advanced relational database and user interface system used for the evaluation, analysis and generation of specialized reports in any of a plurality data analysis environments. The database and analysis system can be utilized for many purposes, but particularly and preferably to support the analysis of patent claims and more specifically claim construction, infringement, written description, invalidity and/or patentability, among other matters of intellectual property litigation and analysis.

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No.16/125,700, filed Sep. 8, 2018, which is a continuation of U.S.application Ser. No. 15/356,649, filed Nov. 20, 2016, which is acontinuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 13/840,292, filed Mar. 15,2013, which claims the benefit under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e) of U.S.Provisional Application 61/621,902, filed Apr. 9, 2012, the entirety ofeach of which is hereby incorporated herein by reference.

STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT

Not Applicable.

THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT

Not Applicable.

INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A COMPACT DISC

Not Applicable.

REFERENCE TO SEQUENCE LISTING, A TABLE, OR A COMPUTER PROGRAM LISTINGCOMPACT DISK APPENDIX

Not Applicable.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION Field of the Invention

The invention relates generally to data processing systems. Morespecifically, the invention relates to a coordinated processing andanalyzing of large amounts of data to reveal complex interrelationshipsin a coherent manner. More specifically still, in one implementation,the invention relates to data processing in accordance with themultifaceted constraints of intellectual property analysis andlitigation.

Description of the Related Art

In an increasingly complex world, situations regularly arise thatrequire the processing and analysis of large amounts of data, aspects ofwhich might be interrelated in numerous ways. It is often useful to beable to simplify the analysis of data and express interrelationshipsacross subsets thereof in a coherent manner, etc. In the field ofcomplex data processing, various systems are available for distillinglarge amounts of data down to its core features in a variety of ways forease of analysis.

One field that regularly involves large data sets with multi-layeredcomplexities is litigation. In the environment of intellectual property,for example, issues of claim construction, infringement, writtendescription, invalidity and/or patentability, among others, might arise.At the heart of these issues are the patent claims, each of whichincludes a variety of concepts. The issues might require analysis oflarge volumes of textual and graphical description, followed by thestructured analysis and mapping of portions thereof against the claims'individual concepts.

With further respect to intellectual property, in the context of patentanalysis or litigation, for example, several variables may contribute tothe complexity and volume of data present in a typical case or matter,including large numbers of 1) patents and claims at issue, 2) claimlimitations in individual claims, 3) references cited by the applicantand/or patent examiner during examination of an application and/or 4)additional prior art references uncovered during post-issuanceinvestigation. As the data in these categories increase, the number ofdiscrete issues likewise generally increases. To combat this complexity,it may be beneficial to combine related issues into groups for purposesof analysis. When searching for invalidating prior art, for example,systems exist that allow a user to break complex claims down into theirindividual limitations, and combine multiple similar limitations acrossclaims or patents into conceptual groupings to reduce the number ofindividual concepts, in an effort to render the search for prior artmore efficient.

Despite these features, however, the user may nevertheless be left tosort through hundreds or thousands of prior art disclosures that mayapply alone or in combination across large numbers of claim limitationor concepts. It may be beneficial in certain scenarios to further enablea user to rank or otherwise qualify prior art references or individualdisclosures in a customizable variety of ways, with respect to theindividual claim concepts being investigated.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

One embodiment of the present invention can in one aspect be generallydescribed as an advanced relational database and user interface systemused for the evaluation, analysis and generation of specialized reportsin any of a plurality of data analysis environments. The database andanalysis system can be utilized for many purposes, but may beparticularly applicable to the analysis of patent claims and morespecifically claim construction, infringement, written description,invalidity and/or patentability. Despite the fact that most of theexamples discussed herein focus on patent analysis, those of skill inthe art will recognize that the techniques and systems in accordancewith the invention are not limited to patent analysis but can beemployed in any document or other data-source driven analysis projectrequiring the collating, comparison and contrasting of multipleinformation sources. Exemplary environments include crime investigationand case management, medical diagnostics and disease research, andscientific experimentation and exploration, among countless otherexamples.

The system allows for analysis, querying, report generation, data miningand visualization to be performed or crowd sourced (e.g., takingadvantage of the inputs of multiple people) by potentially large numbersof system users, stored over time, edited, manipulated, searched,exported and readily accessed by those having appropriate access rights.Reports, visualization and differing data mining techniques can also beapplied by users to manipulate, output and delve into the stored data ina variety of ways.

Different individuals or groups of individuals may be associated withdiffering levels of access rights, depending on the project. Users arepreferably identified by user name and passwords, but additionalsecurity features such as IP address checks, security questions and evenrandom verification codes presented to users through smart phoneapplications can be used to heighten security. In this manner,individuals—even third parties or strangers—can productively contributeto a project with varying access rights. This differentiation betweenvarious users facilitates orderly review, management and crowd-sourcing.In the context of patent analysis, third parties might be limited tosimply the ability to submit prior art for review. Alternatively, lowerlevel users might be able to enter analysis or perform more manipulationof the information in the system and use varying features of the system.Higher level users might have the ability to create and manage projects,construct, link and delink concepts, etc., and run experiments, generatereports or visualizations of the data, etc.

One important feature of a relational database structure and systemaccording to the present invention is its ability to leverage or exploitinformational overlap. In the context of an embodiment of patentanalysis, many claims of a patent within a single patent, across apatent family or even across multiple patent families within a similarsubject area utilize similar elements, language or ideas. The system ofthe present invention leverages this informational overlap to facilitatethe analysis of potentially vast numbers of patent claims by linking inthe relational database the informational overlap—for exampleoverlapping claims, claim elements or limitations or even segments andfragments of claims. This overlapping information is referred to hereinas “concepts”, “concept phrases”, “sub-concepts” or “bridging data.”Concepts themselves can be grouped together and organized to facilitatemore efficient review of the information sources.

Once this linking of concepts has begun, information sources can beanalyzed, entered into the system for comparison, contrasting, analysisand synthesis. The generation of concepts can also be an iterativeprocess where additional concepts are created, sub-concepts are createdor concepts themselves can be edited to evolve over time as thecollective understanding of the project evolves.

Information sources can be evaluated by the users of the system andinformation relating to the information source as well as its relationto the concepts can be entered into the system. For example, in thecontext of patent analysis, an information source might be a pluralityof descriptive documents, including prior art references in variousforms such as transcripts, figures, brochures, working models and otherembodiments. For documents, a user could upload a copy of the prior artreference to the system then enter its relevant bibliographicalinformation (e.g. publication date, author, inventor, etc.) and status(e.g. confidential, public). Another user (or the same user) could thenevaluate that item of prior art, matching disclosure from the prior artwith the concepts or sub-concepts discussed above. Another user canreview that evaluation, make edits, rank or grade the evaluators, etc.

As the evaluation of information sources is in progress, users may trackprogress of the evaluation of information sources and additionallygenerate reports and visualizations. Many different types of reports canbe generated and many types of data visualization can be implemented.

As one, non-limiting example, a report in the context of a patentanalysis project can take the form of invalidity contentions inaccordance with the expectations and specific rules promulgated by, forinstance, the Eastern District of Texas. As another, non-limitingexample, data visualization in the context of patent analysis can takethe form of a heat map depicting (using colors ranging from dark purplethrough white) the intensity or availability or prevalence of prior artdisclosures of a certain concept, claim limitation or claim.

Further reporting and analysis or data mining can take the form ofexperiments. For example, again the context of a patent analysis,different versions of the same type of visualization or report can berun using different fundamental assumptions. For example, the prioritydate of the patent being analyzed can be artificially set to aparticular date—for instance to test the impact of a pre-filingconception date. Alternatively, the experiment could, again in thecontext of patent analysis, generate reports using only a certain typeof information source, in this instance only 102(b) references or onlynon-confidential references. Alternately, the experiment could test theimpact of the removal or exclusion of a particular information source.

Another aspect of the invention is a performance tracking system coupledwith an optional incentive or reward system to facilitate and promotethe use of the cloud and crowd sourced aspects of the system. Manydifferent levels of access to the system can be established by those whothemselves have the highest levels of access. Access to differentfeatures of the system can be tailored on an individualized level orbased upon certain domain names or based on certain IP addresses, etc.Incentives and reward structures can also be overlaid on these levels ofaccess and likewise tailored in the same fashion. For example, if thesystem reveals particular prior art shortcomings for one or moreconcepts in a case, the concept(s) can be identified to third partiesfor prior art searching to locate the particular concept in a prior artreference whereby a third party is incentivized by money, prizes, fameor other rewards for identifying the missing concept(s) specified ascompletely lacking, not very well disclosed, or otherwise in need ofimprovement from the prior art perspective.

Variations of the system include linking cases or projects to expandcollections of prior art across different technologies, by linkingdatabase elements (concepts, references or disclosures related toconcepts for prior art). Other variations include differential access toportions of the system according to user attributes and access controls.User types can include outside counsel, in-house counsel, companyrepresentatives, law firm personnel such as assistants, paralegals,non-lawyer technology professions, outside consultants, experts, andthird party outsourcing services.

A final aspect of the system is a billing system that charges certainusers for access to the system based on a plurality of factors orschedules. For example, the system can bill a user organization on a peruser basis or on a tiered user basis—such as an additional fee per everyfive users. The billing system may also preferably be tied into theperformance, reward and incentive system.

This and many other features and advantages of the invention will bemade apparent from the following detailed description that proceeds withreference to the accompanying Figures.

A portion of the disclosure of this patent document, in particular thefigures, contains material that is subject to copyright protection. Thecopyright owner has no objection to the facsimile reproduction by anyoneof the patent document or the patent disclosure as it appears in thePatent and Trademark Office patent file or records, but otherwisereserves all copyright rights whatsoever.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1A is a high-level system architecture diagram in accordance withan embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 1B is a system architecture diagram in accordance with anembodiment of the invention.

FIG. 2A is a screenshot of a create user screen in accordance with anembodiment of the invention.

FIG. 2B is a screenshot of an initial case setup screen in accordancewith an embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 3 is a screenshot of an automatic import and parsing screen inaccordance with an embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 4 is a screenshot of a manual patent entry screen in accordancewith an embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 5 is a screenshot of a concept phrase screen in accordance with anembodiment of the invention.

FIGS. 6A and 6B are screenshots of concept phrase association screens inaccordance with embodiments of the invention.

FIGS. 7 and 8 are screenshots of case administration screens inaccordance with embodiments of the invention.

FIG. 9 is a screenshot of a citation format screen in accordance with anembodiment of the invention.

FIG. 10 is a screenshot of an information source screen in accordancewith an embodiment of the invention.

FIGS. 11 and 12 are screenshots of chart generation screens inaccordance with embodiments of the invention.

FIG. 13 is a screenshot of an advance search screen in accordance withan embodiment of the invention.

FIGS. 14-16 are screenshots of chart output excerpts in accordance withembodiments of the invention.

FIG. 17 is a screenshot of a data mining output excerpt in accordancewith an embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 18 is an illustration of various information and concept ratingcriteria.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

In the following detailed description of the invention, reference ismade to the figures, which illustrate specific, exemplary embodiments ofthe invention. It should be understood that varied or additionalembodiments having different structures or methods of operation might beused without departing from the scope and spirit of the disclosure.

Generally, a system of the present invention can take several forms.First, the system can be deployed to a single computer as a standaloneapplication. More preferably, the system is deployed on a server orseries of servers. In a standalone application, the system componentswould need to include some or all of the system modules as disclosedherein, depending upon a particular implementation.

This disclosure describes embodiments of the invention as systems,non-transitory computer-readable media (e.g., embodied in a hard orfloppy disk or other computer storage medium), and methods of usinganalysis platforms to analyze information within controlled environmentsthat include on-line and off-line components. Throughout thisdisclosure, controlled environments include environments that areaccessible to users and that allow users to analyze and controlinformation within a segregated environment. The analysis platformsallow users to analyze information directly, indirectly andinteractively. In one example, the method includes accessing theanalysis platforms using an administration application that allows usersto generate and modify analysis segments for a defined amount of timewithin the controlled environments. The administration applicationcontrols a portion of the controlled environments for access by otherusers. The administration application further links analysis segments topatent claims. The administration application enables users to configurethe controlled environments for a defined amount of time within thecontrolled environments. As a result, the analysis platform supports aplurality of distinct controlled environments that may be linked forfurther integrated analysis.

The administration application allows users to perform functions, suchas create other user profiles; select patents; select an analysis timeperiod; generate messages; select a communications preference; selectdisplay and modification parameters; and establish analysis segments;among other functions.

A generalized embodiment of an overall system configuration isillustrated as a system 100 a in FIG. 1A. The embodiment of an exemplaryanalysis platform 100 a in accordance with the invention includes acontrolled environment 105, a communication application 115, and one ormore user devices 125 to 125 n (where n is any number of devices).According to one example, the controlled environment 105 provides usersof the analysis platform 100 a with a secure gateway for navigatingvarious on-line resources. The controlled environment 105 may include aplurality of components for communicatively coupling with other datarepositories or with the one or more user devices 125 to 125 n. Forexample, the controlled environment 105 may include an analysisinterface engine 109 and analysis interface 111, among other components.

The user devices may include or access a communication application 115for accessing resources through the controlled environment 105. Thecommunication application 115 may provide a consistent graphical userinterface (“GUI”) for navigating various resources, including theanalysis interface engine 109, and analysis interface 111, among otherresources. The analysis interface 111 receives and provides informationfrom communication application 115 to analyze and manipulate informationcontained within controlled environment 105.

The communication application 115 allows users to directly access thecontrolled environment 105 via a private or public dedicated URL, ordedicated connection method including a virtual private network (“VPN”).Once within the controlled environment 105, the analysis interfaceengine 109 may allow users to search information and generate reportsfor the information, including claim charts and contentions, with thecontrolled environment 105.

As described in further detail below, if the user is registered with anaccess server that is associated with the controlled environment 105,the user may be authenticated by matching authentication informationwith access information that preexists on the access server.Alternatively, if the user is not authenticated by the access server,then the user may be invited to submit requested authenticationinformation or take other action.

If the user is authenticated, then the user may be directed to theanalysis interface engine 109, which enables the user to access casespecific information. The analysis interface engine 109 presents userswith information and templates that may be customized, while providingusers with a functionality and uniformity within the controlledenvironment 105. In other words, the functionality of the analysisinterface engine 109 remains familiar to users within the controlledenvironment 105.

The invention might be implemented in a variety of ways. In oneembodiment, the system code is written using Adobe System's ColdFusionMarkup Language (CFML) version 8, HyperText Markup Language (HTML),JavaScript and Microsoft's Structured Query Language (SQL). Theapplication may be developed on a Windows XP platform but can also runon Windows 7, among others. The system uses both the Windows InternetInformation Services (IIS) and ColdFusion Server services to process thecode and data into web pages. In one implementation, all data recordsare stored in a Microsoft SQL Server 2005 database using a relationaldatabase schema.

The code may be organized using the Fusebox methodology. Fusebox is aframework for building web applications comprised of circuits thatcorrespond to directory and file structures on the web server thatfunction as event handlers to serve up code templates as necessary. Oneskilled in the art would appreciate that many variations are possiblewithout departing from the scope of the invention as described herein.

An embodiment of the overall system configuration is illustrated as asystem 100 b in FIG. 1B and described more generally herein. Each modulecommunicates directly or indirectly with the System Database 102 toreceive and send information for a module's functionality, and furthermay receive information from other modules directly, or indirectlythrough the System Database 102.

The System Database 102 is a relational database serving as or coupledto a repository 104 for all Information Sources, generally referencedherein by the terms prior art, prior art references, prior artdocuments, system descriptions, product descriptions, or other documentsand descriptions that are to be analyzed by the system 100 b withrespect to the Target Claims. The System Database 102 further includesvarious information via the repository 104, including Target Claims,Claim Concepts, Raw Claim Charts, Edited Claim Charts, AdministratorProfiles, User Profiles, etc., representing stored data associated withthe aforementioned, such as for accessing, processing and displaying ofa variety of information by the system 100. Additional analysis may bestored by the System Database 102 including Target Claim Analysis,Concept Analysis and Reference Ranking analysis as described furtherbelow.

The Target Claim Importation Module 106 receives and processesinformation related to one or more claims of one or more target patents.The claim information may be retrieved as input 108 from feeds fromGoogle Patents, the USPTO, RDBMS (Relational Database Management System)or other sources having claim limitations for target patents. The TargetClaims may be segmented according to the familiar claim limitationbreakdown by semicolon or otherwise, and further configured via userinput to make corrections or changes as suitable to reflect the claimsas issued, reissued or otherwise recognized as amended by the USPTO.

The Reference Importation Module 110 receives and processes informationrelated to one or more Information Sources, such as prior art referencesor product/service descriptions. The Information Sources may beretrieved as input 112 from feeds from Google Patents, the USPTO,Scientific Engineering Library Databases, Users, etc. for receivingreference files and reference information. PDF or other electronicreferences may also be received by the Reference Importation Module.

The Administration Input Module 114 receives inputs 116 from a caseadministrator for manipulation of case information, including templatefields, claim associations, claim concepts, Target Patents for theTarget Claim Importation Module, etc.

The User Input Module 118 receives inputs 120 from users of the system100 b for manipulation of case information including disclosures of theInformation Sources matching claim concepts, motivation to combineinformation, and other information related to the Information Sources.The User Input Module 118 also receives inputs related to information tobe displayed or output from the System Database 102 including variousforms of claim charts, claim reports or other views/reports ofinformation contained within the System Database 102.

The Claim Concept Construction Module 122 receives inputs 124 fromAdministration Input Module 114 and Target Claim Importation Module 106.In exemplary embodiments, the Claim Concept Construction Module 122 isconfigured to parse Target Claim information into featuresrepresentative of portions of a claim limitation. The features are alsoreferred to herein as concepts, claim concepts, segments, or claimsegments. Because claims oftentimes repeat specific claim language oruse different claim language to represent an aspect of a claimedinvention, there is repetition of claim limitations or minor varianceswith respect to claim limitations across multiple claims of a patent, orclaims in different patents from the same family. Concepts are used torepresent the same or similar features recited in Target Claims that arerepeated within a single claim or among other claims.

The Claim Concept Construction Module 122 presents to a User, typicallya User with Administrator privileges, all claims from a Target Patent.From the claims of a Target Patent, the User may extract concepts suchthat the concepts are representative of all claim limitations for eachclaim of a Target Patent. In one exemplary embodiment, the Claim ConceptConstruction Module 122 presents a list of claims and permits the userto drag and drop concepts into a Concept Extraction area for groupingsimilar recited claim language for tagging or association with oneconcept. In this way, various recitations of claim language areassociated with the same concept. In addition, the System Database 102associates each concept with the corresponding claim limitationindicated by the user. In another embodiment, the concepts for TargetClaims may be listed manually by a user in the form of a chart, wherebythe claim language appears in a left hand column and the one or moreconcepts for each claim limitation appear in the corresponding row forthe claim limitation. The user will mentally extract one or moreconcepts that represent each claim limitation for each Target Claim andwrite, type or otherwise record the information in a claim chart. Onceall concepts are identified and recorded manually in a chart for theTarget Claims, the User will associate, tag or otherwise link eachconcept using an interface of the Claim Concept Construction Module 122,thereby instructing the System Database 102 as to the relationshipbetween each concept and one or more claim limitations (as describedfurther below with respect to other figures). In yet another embodiment,the Claim Concept Construction Module 122 may be configured to receivean identification of concepts for each limitation of each Target Claimby presenting the user with a first claim limitation. The user will theninput a first concept for that claim limitation. The concept will beadded to a list displayed to the user. The user will then input a secondconcept for the claim limitation, with the second concept added to thelist of concepts for the claim limitation, and so on, until the claimlimitation has the appropriate concepts associated to it. For the nextclaim limitation, the user may input a concept for the claim limitationor choose an appropriate concept from the list of concepts previouslyassociated with a different claim limitation. In this way, concepts arereused or may be added to the case. This workflow is continued until allTarget Claims have appropriate concept associations.

In a further configuration for each of the above embodiments for theClaim Concept Construction Module 122, the module may additionally allowthe user to pre-select claims and/or claim limitations that are similarfrom a list of all claims. In this manner, after concept associationsare indicated by a user for a claim limitation, the Claim ConceptConstruction Module 122 will associate the same list of concepts for thepre-selected claims or claim limitations that are identified by the useras being the same or similar to the just analyzed claim limitation,further advancing the workflow and avoiding repetition of having to makesimilar associations, and also avoiding mistakes in not making the sameassociations for a limitation that were intended by the user, butoverlooked. By populating the same or similar claim limitations in thisway, the user still has the ability to alter or change pre-populatedconcepts at any time.

The Claim Chart Building Module 126 receives inputs 128 from the SystemDatabase 102, User Input Module 118 and Administration Input Module 114.In an exemplary embodiment, the Claim Chart Building Module 126 isconfigured to generate claim charts in various forms by allowing theuser to specify one or more Target Claims and one or more InformationSources (references) that are to be contained within a claim chart.Single or multiple claim charts can be specified by a User and deliveredto a user's access device, or otherwise stored in the System Database102, in various formats including Microsoft Word, PDF, Microsoft Excel,XML or other electronic document formats. The Windows COM standard isused to put information for the System Database 102 into variousMicrosoft Word-based claim charts and other Microsoft Word basedreports.

The Claim Chart Editing Module 130 receives inputs 132 from Claim ChartBuilding Module 126, User Input Module 118 and Administration InputModule 114. In an exemplary embodiment, the Claim Chart Editing Module130 is configured to edit or otherwise revise claim charts in variousforms by allowing the user to specify changes to claim charts generatedby the Claim Chart Building Module 130. Single or multiple claim chartscan be specified for changes or edits, indicated by a User, and thendelivered to a user's access device, or otherwise stored in the SystemDatabase 102, in various formats including Microsoft Word, PDF,Microsoft Excel, XML or other electronic document formats.

The Output Display Module 134 receives inputs 136 from the SystemDatabase 102. In an exemplary embodiment, the Output Display Module 134is configured to output or otherwise display all information stored inthe System Database 102 in various configurations that show individualdata elements and/or relationships between the data elements includingconcepts, claim limitations, claims, Target Claims, Target Patents, Useraccess privileges, data accessed or input by a User, Information Sourcedata elements including associated meta data such as dates, subjectiverankings, User comments, claim charts, other reports, etc.

The Reference Ranking Module 138 receives inputs 140 from Users, ConceptAnalysis Module 142, and Target Claim Analysis Module 106 for objectiveand/or subjective reference analysis. In various methodologies andalgorithms described further herein, the Reference Ranking Module 138associates various criteria for determining how a reference compares toother references in an objective fashion (number of concepts disclosed,particular concepts disclosed as compared with how many other referencesdisclose the same concept, how many claims/claim limitations require aparticular concept, etc.) and also in a subjective fashion (how usersrank the reference overall, how the user ranks particular relevance orimportance of a reference's disclosure of a concept, etc.). TheReference Ranking Module 138, in combination with other modules, is usedto generate and further identify specific results tailored toidentifying the most important references to claims, claim limitationsor concepts as requested by a User or other portions of the system 100,including other modules.

The Concept Analysis Module 142 receives inputs 144 from the SystemDatabase 102 for objective and subjective analysis of concepts. Invarious methodologies and algorithms described further herein, theConcept Analysis Module 142 associates various criteria for determininghow a concept compares to other concepts in an objective fashion (numberof times a concept is disclosed by the references as a whole, frequencyof a concept disclosed by each reference, number of times a concept isassociated with a claim and/or claim limitation and/or Target Patent,etc.) and also in a subjective fashion (how users rank the concept'sdisclosure by a reference overall, how the user ranks the particularrelevance or importance of a reference's disclosure of a concept, etc.).The Concept Analysis Module 142, in combination with other modules suchas the Reference Ranking Module 138 and the Target Claim Analysis Module146, is used to generate and further identify specific results tailoredto identifying the most important concepts for claims, claim limitationsor references as requested by a User or other portions of the system100, including other modules.

The Target Claim Analysis Module 146 receives inputs 148 from the SystemDatabase 102 for objective and subjective analysis of concepts. Invarious methodologies and algorithms described further herein, theTarget Claim Analysis Module 146 associates various criteria fordetermining how a Target Claim compares to other Target Claims in anobjective fashion (number of different concepts required by a TargetClaim, frequency of a concept as associated to claim limitations of aTarget Claim, frequency of similar claim limitations identified by auser as compared to other Target Claims, frequency that words of aconcept are recited in a Target Claim, etc.) and also in a subjectivefashion (how users rank the importance of a Target Claim as compared toother Target Claims, how the user ranks the particular relevance orimportance of a claim limitation of the Target Claim to the importanceof claim limitations of the Target Claim or the claim limitations ofother Target Claims, the frequency in which a single reference ormultiple reference combination discloses an entire claim limitation ofthe Target Claim based on the user's ranking of a concept's strength ofdisclosure for each concept associated with the claim limitation, thefrequency in which a single reference or multiple reference combinationdiscloses the entire Target Claim based on the user's ranking of aconcept's strength of disclosure for each concept associated with theTarget Claim, etc.). The Target Claim Analysis Module 146, incombination with other modules such as the Reference Ranking Module 138and the Concept Analysis Module 142, is used to generate and furtheridentify specific results tailored to identifying the most importantconcepts for claims, claim limitations or references as requested by aUser or other portions of the system 100, including other modules.

The Reference Analyzer Module 150 receives inputs 152 from the SystemDatabase 102 for objective and subjective analysis of concepts. Invarious methodologies and algorithms described further herein, theReference Analyzer Module 150 associates various criteria fordetermining how a reference or information source compares to otherreferences or information sources in an objective fashion (number ofdifferent concepts disclosed by a reference, frequency of a conceptdisclosed by the reference, frequency that a word of a concept or aphrase of the concept matches words of the reference, etc.) and also ina subjective fashion (how users rank the importance of a reference ascompared to other references, how the user ranks the particularrelevance or importance of a references disclosure as a primaryreference candidate compared with other references, how user's specifythe importance of a reference's priority date with respect to one ormore Target Claims based on the priority date of each Target Claim, thefrequency in which a single reference or multiple reference combinationdiscloses an entire claim limitation of the Target Claim based on theuser's ranking of a concept's strength of disclosure for each conceptassociated with the claim limitation, the frequency in which a singlereference or multiple reference combination discloses the entire TargetClaim based on the user's ranking of a concept's strength of disclosurefor each concept associated with the Target Claim, etc.). The ReferenceAnalyzer Module 150, in combination with other modules such as theReference Ranking Module 138, the Target Claim Analysis Module 146 andthe Concept Analysis Module 142, is used to generate and furtheridentify specific results tailored to identifying the most importantconcepts for claims, claim limitations or references as requested by aUser or other portions of the system 100, including other modules.

When deployed as a cloud-based system on a server or system of servers,individual users can preferably access the system 100 b using any one ofseveral available commercial browsers such as Firefox, InternetExplorer, Chrome, and Safari. Depending on the suite of featuresdeployed by a particular installation of the system, using commerciallyavailable browsers might require the users to install and occasionallyupdate browser plug-ins. Alternatively, the users can download andinstall a standalone thin-client. Users accessing the system 100 bthrough one of the preferred commercial browsers are presented anintuitive graphical user interface having features familiar to mostusers—menus, radio-buttons, tabs, folders, links, etc.

In relation to the generalized embodiment of an overall systemconfiguration of system 100 a in FIG. 1A, the modules, information andfunctionality of FIG. 1B and their respective descriptions may befurther understood with the high level blocks of FIG. 1A. For example,the controlled environment 105 may include system database 102(including information of repository 104), target claim importationmodule 106, reference importation module 110, administration inputmodule 114, user input module 118, claim construction module 122, claimchart building module 126, claim chart editing module 130, outputdisplay module 134, reference ranking module 138, concept analysismodule 142, target claim analysis module 146, reference analyzer module150. The analysis interface engine 109 of controlled environment 105 mayinclude claim construction module 122, claim chart building module 126,claim chart editing module 130, output display module 134, referenceranking module 138, concept analysis module 142, target claim analysismodule 146, reference analyzer module 150. The analysis interface 111 ofcontrolled environment 105 correlates data of the system 100 b, inputsfrom the user, and various displays of data in cooperation with analysisinterface engine 109. For example, analysis interface 111 may generallyrepresent input feed 108, input feed 112, input from administration 116,input from users 120, and the various inputs 124, 128, 132, 136, 140,144, 148 and 152.

Initially, the users of a system in accordance with the invention, whichin this embodiment and throughout the disclosure herein may be a systemas exemplified by systems 100 a and/or 100 b, as reflected in FIGS. 1Aand 1B, respectively, or may vary significantly therefrom as describedherein, may establish a project, so as to segregate a current instanceof analysis and evaluation from past or future instances. Any user withappropriate access rights, for example a “Case Administrator,” canestablish a project. In the context of one embodiment, a patent analysisproject, the project can be referred to as a “case,” which may or maynot uniquely correspond to, for example, a pending litigation. Theestablishment of a case may create a link on a navigation screen and mayalso automatically populate the case with certain menus, links, etc., toassist the users' further preparation of the case for analysis. Otherlevels of access rights may be provided with other levels of permissionand accordingly other abilities to manipulate the system to accesscertain features and the data that resides therein.

Referring now to FIG. 2A, the system allows users having sufficientaccess rights to also create new users associated with or within aparticular case or project. Users are preferably recorded and recognizedusing their first names, last names, email address and passwords.Preferably, the user logs into the system by way of his or her user nameand password. Preferably, a user with sufficiently high access canmanage and establish other users with equal or lower levels of access.To ensure security users might also be subject to IP address checks,security questions if an unrecognized device or IP address is being usedto access the system or even asked to submit randomly generatedverification codes, unique to each user, that are obtained by way of asmart phone application or text messaging system.

Many different levels of access can be created, each having its ownassociated rights to use the system and its features, as explainedherein in more detail. Once a user is created, the user name ispopulated. From there, certain users can be added or removed from thecase. In this particular example, the only users associated with the“Walker Digital” case are Jay Guiliano and Frank Rathgeber. Bothindividuals have “gate keeper” access rights. The labels on each levelof access, such as “gate keeper” are arbitrary and customizable as arethe access rights and features permitted to be used or even viewed.

Preferably, “gate keeper” level of access allows the establishment andmanagement of lower level user rights, but does not permit access tosearching, analysis or data entry, for example. This screen alsopreferably displays the number of users, their access levels, theirstatus and further provides for the ability to delete users. Maintenanceof users and access rights is preferably flexible so that the users ofthe system can provide each level of user with a customized bundle ofaccess rights.

Other specific system user levels can be created as needed. For example,in a large crowd-sourcing project, it might be desirable to have oneindividual monitor and manage the performance of a plurality of thirdparty system users. Potentially, such a manager might be able to accessmenus and system features relating to monitoring performance andactivity of the third party system users, but not be able themselves toenter or manipulate data relating to the projects.

As yet another example, certain users might be granted the ability onlyto upload new potential sources of information. Other user access levelsmight be permitted to upload new information sources and evaluate thoseinformation sources, or alternatively upload new information sources butonly evaluate the sources others have uploaded, as a quality controlmechanism. Higher levels of access could potentially add or deleteinformation sources, run certain types of reports, etc.. Higher levelsstill might be able to access deeper levels of the relational databaseto expand, contract, edit, link or delink the concepts discussed herein.

FIG. 2B depicts a case administration screen of an embodiment of thepresent invention. From this screen, the users of the system can start anew case, review active cases or review inactive cases by clicking theappropriate link. Within an active case, for example the “WalkerDigital” case depicted in FIGS. 2A and 2B, the user has several options.First, the users can enter a maintenance mode for the case. Themaintenance mode locks down the information contained in the database sothat fundamental aspects of the database can be edited or the case canbe placed on inactive status. The user may also set up new users or editor modify current user access rights. The case title itself may beedited. Additionally, the case administration screen allows the user toset up bates numbering conventions that will be used by informationsource documents by the various parties to a patent litigation, if theproject is associated with a patent litigation.

In the area depicted below in FIG. 2B, the user may also add, edit,manipulate or modify the database with respect to individual targetdocuments, in this case a patent document. By clicking on theappropriate link, users with sufficient access can add new patents.Alternatively, for an existing target document, in this case the '942patent, users with sufficient access rights can preview the patent, editthe properties associated with this patent in the database, create oredit or modify claim charts, run reports, such as a claim report, add oredit claims of interest and manage and view associated documents, suchas .pdfs associated with the target document.

If another project has already analyzed a particular patent, and theusers associated with this project have access to the associateddatabase information, the system can optionally import or copyinformation from that previous project. In a similar fashion, the systemcan create backups of projects and all of the associated data on apredefined schedule or on a variable schedule depending on the frequencyof use—for example, while users are entering data backups that occurmore frequently than when users are only logging on sporadically.

Preferably, projects are protected from one another and from outsideunauthorized access by way of the username/password/security systemdescribed above, but also through the encryption of a projects specificdata. Indeed, because of the often confidential legal nature of theanalysis involved in the a patent analysis embodiment, theadministrators of the system might not be able to either view data ordecrypt data without particular access codes and authorizations fromcase administrators.

If a user lacks sufficient access rights, the system may not even grantthem the ability to view this screen or alternatively may not present orallow certain links to progress. Depending on user access levels,certain actions may or may not be permitted by certain users—forexample, a user might be able to create or view claim charts, but not beable to add new patents or vice versa.

Referring now to FIG. 3, if a user with sufficient access in the caseadministration screen has the ability to add a new target patent, thesystem will redirect or present the screen depicted in FIG. 3 as apop-up or as a new window in the browser or interface. This screenallows users to automatically import information from a new patent froman open-source tools, such as Google patents or the USPTO website (notshown) or some other source (whether open or not). If an automaticimport is unavailable or undesirable, the information can be built upwithin the database manually.

If manual building of target information—in this case the claims of apatent—is selected, the system presents the screen of FIG. 4 to a userof sufficient access. Here, the user is presented with simple text boxesto delineate the various limitations of a specific claim. As a default,but changeable convention, the system recognizes separate claimlimitations as, claim 1 [a], 1[b], l[c], 2, 3[a], 3[b], etc., accordingto the specific structure of the claims. After each respective claimlimitation is manually entered into the system, the user mayalternatively save and add another limitation, save and add a new claimto the patent or save and finish or exit.

Once claim limitation information is entered, users with sufficientaccess to the system may create prima facie links and hierarchies in thetarget information. In the example of a patent analysis project, this isdone by setting up the dependency structure between various claims in atarget patent. If the automatic importation of claim limitations isselected, this process also occurs manually with the ability of the userto review and edit this dependency structure, should an error beintroduced. For example, if claim 3 depends from claim 2, which dependsfrom claim 1, the system will establish that hierarchy. The system iscapable of recognizing multiple dependencies or alternative dependenciesas well—for example, claims written as “claim 4 depends from eitherclaim 2 or claim 3 wherein . . . ” using any number of techniques todistinguish between the claims, denoted claim 4(3) and claim 4(2).

Either prior to or subsequent to the establishment of the targetinformation, e.g. patent claims, in the system, important bibliographicinformation regarding the target information or patent can beestablished in the system. In the example of a patent analysis project,this information can take the form of the names of the inventor orinventors, the patent number, application information, an issue date andthe filing date or dates of priority applications.

Additionally, if necessary or desirable, priority dates can beestablished within the system for individual claims or claim limitationsat the outset of a project or later when such information becomes knownwith greater confidence. The target information may also be labeled witha nickname to make it easier for users to navigate through more complexprojects. In the example shown in FIG. 2, the target patent is given thenickname of “pre-sale.” This may be of particular use when, in the caseof target patents the last three numbers of the patent number are thesame.

It should also be noted that both target information and informationsources—the target patent and prior references in a patent analysisembodiment—can be tracked using bates numbers or other serial numbersand copies of these documents can be uploaded and linked to the projectappropriately.

Next, with reference to FIG. 5, the target information can be analyzedto create and leverage informational overlap. In the example of oneembodiment—a patent analysis project—the patent claims can be brokeninto what are referred to herein as “concepts” or “concept phrases.”Concept phrases generally represent shorthand, abbreviated or mnemonicdescriptions of the target information's overlapping constituentcomponents. In one embodiment, this represents the overlap betweenpatent claims, claim limitations or even fragments of claim limitations.

These overlapping concept phrases are linked or associated with portionsof the target information, in the case of a patent analysis embodiment,to portions of claim language. The structure, associations, grouping andlabeling of the concepts is controlled by users with sufficient accessand can be edited and evolved as the project evolves.

Concepts may be set, depending on the preferences of the user to a verygranular or specific lever or at a higher level. This often depends onthe identification of potentially important items of informationbeforehand. In any event, as stated elsewhere, the concepts may beadjusted and readjusted as necessary.

Using the example of patent analysis, if for example a small number ofclaims and claim limitations are to be evaluated, tying concept phrasesto more granular information can be advantageous. On the other hand, ifa large number of claims and claim limitations are to be evaluated,tying concept phrases to less granular information can be advantageous.Typically, the system users will use a mixed approach as appropriate. Asa result of breaking claims into concept phrases, each portion orlimitation of a claim will be associated with one or more conceptphrases and each claim to be evaluated or analyzed may be expressed asvarious combinations and permutations of the concept phrases.Importantly, these concept phrases can be established across multiplepatents, whether such patents are related in a patent filing sense orwhether such patents simply share certain features.

Here, the claim limitation is perhaps too complex to be simply linkedwith a single concept. Instead, multiple concepts will be associatedwith this claim limitation. The available concept phrases are presentedin the box on the left and using the arrow keys, the user can associatethese concepts with this specific claim limitation. The order of theconcepts within the claim limitation association can similarly be rankedto later ensure readability of the outputted reports. Once the user issatisfied that the associations are correct, the user clicks the saveassociations button and proceeds to the next limitation. Alternatively,if the user determines that a new concept is necessary, the user can hitcancel and navigate back to the concept creation screens.

Referring back to FIG. 5, depicted is an exemplary breakdown of a singleclaim of the target patent into various concept phrases. A user withsufficient access may read a limitation in its entirety by clicking onthe corresponding link. This is often useful during the process ofcreating the concept phrasing or during the editing of concept phrases.By clicking on the “manage associations” link, a user with sufficientaccess might be able to adjust what concepts are associated with aparticular limitation. In this exemplary breakdown of the '942 patent,claim limitation 1[a] is associated with the concept of “SellingActivity: [preamble] software to sell substitute product.” Claimlimitation 1[b] is associated with two concepts—a “POS terminal” and“receiving transaction data regarding the offered product.”

With reference to FIG. 6A, once the concept phrases are established, theuser can associate concept phrases with each other based on similarcharacteristics. While this organizational step is not strictlynecessary, it is preferable in order to present a cleaner graphical userinterface for the system users and to speed the later review ofinformation sources—in this case prior art references and documents.More preferably, these associated concept phrases are organized andpresented as separate tabs in the web-based interface, similar to mostweb browsers and accordingly intuitive to most users.

Establishing concept phrases, linking the concepts with claims andassociating the concepts with each other can be an iterative processuntil the system users are satisfied with the coverage of the claims andthe varying levels of granularity desired. The concept phrases andassociations can then be “locked down” by the system or by certain usersgranted certain access privileges, such as a case administrator ormanager. Likewise, if adjustments or edits prove necessary, the caseadministrator can then unlock the concept phrases and their respectiveassociations.

With reference to FIG. 6B, a user with sufficient system access hasclicked on the manage associations link of a screen, similar to FIG. 5corresponding to limitation 1[h] of the target claim. When the systempresents such a screen to a user with sufficient access the user is ableto examine a list of all of the concepts that have so far beenestablished for the project. By clicking the appropriate concept and theleft and right arrows, the user is able to associate one or moreconcepts with the limitation presented above, in this case 1[h]. In asimilar fashion, the user may remove a concept from its association withthat same limitation. This is often useful when concepts have beenedited or manipulated to be more granular or less granular, given thecircumstances or when an assumption of the project that resulted in theestablishment of the original set of concepts. For example, in theparticular example depicted in FIG. 6B, users of the system may decidethe “RF” should be divided into sub-concepts, such as wi-fi and cellularto account for a situation where a court might later adopt a claimconstruction that included or excluded one or the other from the meaningof “RF.” Once the user is satisfied with the concept associations for agiven limitation, the user may click the “save associations” button.Alternatively, the user may click on the “cancel” button to return tothe previously saved state. In one embodiment of the present invention,a patent analysis project, the system also preferably reminds the userthat certain limitations are written in means-plus-function format. Theuser is then reminded or prompted to later input into the system anidentification of any structure that performs the designated structure.Optionally, when a means-plus-function limitation is established, thesystem of the present invention may create a specific data entry fieldfor the corresponding structure.

FIG. 7 illustrates another aspect of the system according to the presentinvention. Here a user is presented with an updated case administrationscreen, similar to the case administration screen described above.Importantly, here the concepts associated with this patent have beenestablished (at least in part) and the hierarchy or grouping of conceptshas also been established (at least in part). Specifically, the user ispresented with a grouped list of concept phrases under the heading“Software.” Users with sufficient access can enter into “maintenancemode” in order to create, delete, edits and rearrange concepts andgroups of concepts.

FIG. 8 illustrates a further aspect of the system according to thepresent invention. Now the user has been presented with an even furtherdeveloped case administration screen. Several patents have been added tothe project and a more developed list of concepts, grouped under variousheadings has been established. The two concept groups depicted in FIG. 8are the “Components Hardware” group and the “Protocols” group. Note thata user with sufficient access is granted the ability to add a new group,or edit existing groups by clicking on the appropriate correspondinglink.

It is preferable in many instances to ensure a consistent presentationand collection of data within the system. This can be particularlyimportant in crowd-sourcing projects where many different users mighthave very different preferences for analyzing and inputting informationfrom information sources, or in the case of the a patent analysisembodiment inputting information from prior art references. This systemattempts to regiment data input by allowing the users to establish thestructure of input fields for evaluation. In FIG. 9, the users haveestablished the use of quotation marks for text entry and a specificinput style for the citation of prior art patents. Images may also beinput into the system as bitmaps, jpegs, pdf s, xps, etc.

With reference to FIG. 10, a user of the system is presented with ascreen such as depicted in FIG. 10 during the process of reviewing andanalyzing information sources for the presence of disclosure pertainingto the established concepts. In the case of a patent analysis projectthis could be, in the case of an invalidity analysis the disclosure ofvarious prior art references. If an alternative type of project werebeing undertaken, for example an infringement analysis, the informationsources to be compared to the concepts would be documents describing anaccused product or system. In the case of a claim construction orsection 112 support analysis, the information sources could be thespecification of the target patent, the file history of the targetpatent, declarations by experts or inventors and even other prior artreferences themselves referred to in the prosecution history.

Prior to being presented with this screen, the users (preferably theuser that uploads the information source to the system) enter into thesystem the appropriate bibliographic information associated with thatinformation source. Such information includes, but is not limited to,the author, the full title, a short title, the publication date,evidentiary sponsors, the publication date, the confidential status ofthe document, bates stamp ranges, the source of the document, etc. Inthe case of an invalidity or unpatentability reference, the system cantrack the relevant section of 35 USC § 102; in the case of aninfringement document, the system tracks the relevant section of 35U.S.C. § 271 and the “model” or “version” of the accused product orservice. Additionally, the users of the system can upload one or morecopies of the document to the system along with further descriptions ornotations (e.g. “best copy available,” bates stamped, redacted, etc.).

Moving across the top of FIG. 10, the first box that is highlighted isthe reference serial number. The system preferably assigns eachinformation source with its own serial number. The printer icon next tothe text allows the user to print a paper (or electronic) copy of thereference for review. The other boxes running along the top of FIG. 10correspond to groupings of concepts that have been previouslyestablished, with the exception of the “General” tab, which is where thereviewer can enter in the appropriate bibliographic informationpertaining to the information source. The check marks depicted next toeach tab title indicate that the user has saved some informationpertaining to those tabs and their respective concepts to the system.The tab entitled “Protocols” is highlighted currently and this indicatesthat the user is entering information pertaining to the concepts groupedunder “Protocols.” Below the tabs is a “Documents edit” link, whichallows the user to manage the document associated with the serial number51. To the right, the system presents links associated with all of thedocuments associated with this reference, its title and its status—inthis case, public.

Importantly, multiple documents may be associated with the referenceserial number 51 for various reasons. Often, in the case of a litigationa document may be produced multiple times with multiple bates numbers.It may be desirous for the system to track each copy of the document.Other times, particular with respect to older informational sources,various copies may be better or worse—even in part—in terms oflegibility. Finally, it may be the case that the users of the system maydecide that multiple documents should be treated as a single referencefor purposes of the project. This might be because the documentsrepresent, for example, multiple office actions and responses in apatent prosecution file or multiple documents describing a single publicuse or on-sale bar.

Below is the “save concept information” and “cancel” buttons, which havethe same function as described above. It may be preferable in the systemto present multiple instances of this functionality, for example at thetop and bottom of the screen—particularly where a large number ofconcepts are grouped together under a single heading.

Below these items in FIG. 10, the user is presented with the conceptsthemselves and several boxes and buttons for data input. To the left isa radio button or check box that indicates that the information sourcediscloses that concept. Preferably, the system will automaticallyactivate that box or button if the user enters any information in thedata boxes. Alternatively, it may be preferable for the system to notactivate that button until all information is appropriately entered as afailsafe.

The larger data entry box permits the user to copy or manually enterdisclosure from the information source. The smaller data entry boxpermits the user to enter a specific citation for that disclosure. Thesystem preferably ensures that whatever citation convention has beenestablished for this project is followed before letting the user savethe information. If the user finds the concept difficult to follow orwishes to review actual examples of claim language, the system presentsthat information if the “view associated claims” link is clicked. Thisinformation also preferable indicates the claim numbers associated withthat limitation.

If multiple disclosures in an information source disclose a concept, theuser has the ability to create additional data entry boxes so that eachdisclosure has its own data entry boxe associated with it.

A reviewer thereafter reviews each individual reference and enters intothe system those portions of the document that correspond to each of theaforementioned concept phrases that appear within. The entry of thisinformation can be manually typed into the system, cut and pasted ordragged and dropped using any one of several methods well known to thoseof skill in the art. One preferable mechanism for entering informationcan employed using the Tabulaw software, for example. Accordingly, theentered information may be text, hypertext, or images. Further, thesystem tracks relevant citation information, e.g. in the case of apatent document the relevant column and line number or figure number, inthe case of an article the page number, or in the case of a website theURL information.

In addition, the system allows the reviewer to categorize eachindividual entry of information. If an invalidity or infringementanalysis is being performed, the system allows the reviewer to choosebetween multiple levels of importance—express, inherent, sufficient,similar, etc. Alternatively, the system can simply rank a disclosure ona numerical scale. Any type of custom tag can be generated pursuant tothe needs of the users. If no disclosure for a concept exists within aparticular document, depending on the parameters set by the users of thesystem, then that concept can simply be left blank. Additionally, thesystem provides for the entry of free-form arguments in the same or aseparate field if the disclosure of the document requires someexplanation as to how it meets the concept phrase.

Additionally, the system provides for the entry of language that couldbe useful to provide a “motivation to combine,” for use in a laterobviousness combination. Additionally, the system can provide a fieldfor reviewers to provide a more subjective evaluation of the document.For example, the system might provide for a numerical ranking of thedocument's subjective value for a jury presentation, where a higherranking would be given to documents that were clearer and moredigestible by a layperson.

It should also be noted that the system will permit text to be formattedin any way that the users desire. For example, the system can bold,underline and italicize just as any word processor and also may permitcolor text, highlighting and the manipulation of fonts. This can beparticularly useful when a disclosure involves a large quantity of text.Additionally, the users of the system are not limited to simply enteringtext into the system, as stated above, the system also associates imageswith the concept, in any image format supported by the browser—such asjpeg, bitmap, pdf, xps, etc. It is even possible to associate audio andvideo clips with a concept or other types of data files. What type ofdata may be entered into the fields and associated with concepts mayalso be different for different users with different levels of access.In this example, the system only permits the users to upload images byclicking on the appropriate link.

The system may also preferably provide an electronic version of theinformation source to the user when the user is entering a disclosure(excerpts) of the information source into the system. The user may dragand drop disclosures of the information source into a concept field.Alternatively, the system may present the user with fields notassociated with any concepts and permit the user to designate specificconcepts that are to be associated with the data entered into thefield(s). In this manner, multiple concepts may be associated with thesame information source excerpt and corresponding citation, withouthaving to place the excerpt and corresponding citation in eachconcept/citation fields appropriate to the information source excerpt.As a further alternative, once a concept/citation field contains anexcerpt for an information source, the system may be configured topermit the user to identify other concepts for which the sameinformation source excerpt applies. These latter two alternativesprovide the advantage of not duplicating the information source excerptsoutput in charts or reports. For example, if two concepts are eachlinked to the same information source excerpt, and a report or chartrequires a output for both concepts, the system would preferably onlyoutput the information source excerpt once from either concept becausethe output would be the same for each concept. The system need notpresent redundant information already supplied by one of two conceptshaving the same information source excerpt.

As users review information sources, they may also mark the sources asin progress, incomplete or complete to signify to other users of thesystem that they should either review the reference or not review thereference accordingly. Once marked complete, users with higher levels ofaccess may review the inputted information and make changes asappropriate. Once satisfied, a particular reference may be locked downby the users of the system and closed to further editing. Later, areference may be unlocked again for further editing.

It is also preferable for the system to track and display to certainlevels of users which user has uploaded a particular information source,reviewed a particular information source, edited the data entries ormarked an information source as complete. This type of information canbe used to gauge productivity of users, manage the review process and aswill be further discussed herein allocate bonuses, incentives and awards(or demerits, etc.) to the various individuals involved in a project.Such tracking information may also track mouse clicks, keyboard use,etc., and other standard tracking measures for such purposes as well.

With reference to FIG. 11, a user with sufficient access to the systemcan generate reports, charts or data visualizations or run experimentsat any time during the project. FIG. 11 depicts the presentation of achart generation wizard in accordance with an embodiment of the presentinvention. The user may select the type of chart that is desired to begenerated. In this instance, the radio button is selecting “claimlimitations showing corresponding references” which is a \ shorthandform of chart that simply shows the references that, based on the reviewof the users, discloses limitations.

Any other conceivable type of chart is possible, but the systemillustrated by FIG. 11 depicts two other common and useful charts thatthe system of the present invention may generate for data miningpurposes. First, a table mapping claim limitations to references in astandard two-column invalidity chart that is well known to patentpractitioners and litigators. Second, the system is also displaying anoption to build a § 102/§ 103 combinations chart. This type of chartlists all references that disclose the limitations of the selectedclaims (below) either alone or in combination with other references. Inthe case of combinations, the system will create a chart that shows eachviable combination, rather than simply all possible 2-way, 3-way, 4-way,etc., combinations. While other charts, reports and data mining andexperimentation is possible, FIG. 11 reflects a user of the system thatdoes not have the correct type of system access to view those options.

In the lower section of FIG. 11, the user may select the claims thatwill be analyzed as part of the chart-building process. Claimdependences, or multiple/conditional dependencies would also preferablybe displayed here. Once the user is satisfied, the user clicks the“build chart” button and a radio button corresponding to the desiredoutput format. In FIG. 11, those output formats are word documents orsimply displayed on screen in the user's browsers. Any other type ofdocument or image format may alternatively be selected, such as pdf,WordPerfect, tiff, xps, etc. depending on the setup of the system.

FIG. 12 depicts another example of chart-building according to anembodiment of the invention. In this type of chart-building, the usercan select whether to see the “text/citations” or only “citations.” Inthis embodiment the user can also determine certain formats for thechart-build, such as whether portrait or landscape is desired. It isalso preferable that the system enables the users of the chart to buildcharts for the purpose of submitting or serving in the course of alitigation or a USPTO proceeding. In that instance, the system may allowusers to specify a particular format designed to be as compliant aspractical with a given court or agency's rule set—for example, if theusers select the Central District of California as an output format, thesystem will build the chart using the lined and numbered pages requiredin that jurisdiction.

This allows a user to not only build charts, but to run certainexperiments on the data set. For example, a particular reference mightbe excluded due to late production or discovery, and the users candetermine the impact that this would have on a case. Alternatively,users can eliminate references known to be weaker or cumulative.

FIG. 12 allows the user to preferable select up to 40 claims and up to40 references (or other predetermined limits) for the chart build. Theselimits can be set to ensure that the browser and the system memory isnot exceeded and alternatively to ensure that the output is manageable.In a patent project with a large number of claims and a large number ofreferences, the reports and charts that can be generated by the systemcan easily reach several thousand pages in content.

FIG. 13 depicts an exemplary “advanced searching” screen that a systemof the invention might present to users with sufficient access. Here,the users can run analysis, build charts, engage in data mining orvisualization by controlling various assumptions and examining theresulting data. For example, the user might do a free form text searchto determine if some specific language appears in any reference. Thissearch might be a “natural language” search or consist of Booleansearching of the types familiar to those of ordinary skill in the art.Alternatively, or conjunctively, the user may experiment by setting datelimits. This is particularly useful in, for example, an invalidityproject, where the possibility of a pre-filing priority date exists. Theexperiment might specify that only references or information sourceshaving particular characteristics should be analyzed by the system—forinstance, a specific concept or a specific status (e.g. public,confidential or either).

FIG. 14 depicts a portion of the output of an exemplary chart build ofthe system of the preferred embodiment of the present invention. In theleft hand column of the chart the claim language appears. In the righthand column disclosure from the information sources or, in thisinstance, prior art references are presented. Each reference is headedby its name—e.g., “Spaar” or “Ferrone” and what follows are (in thisinstance) quotations and citations from the respective references. Notethat in the instance of the Ferrone disclosure, the system breaks thelimitation into two separate quotations and citations, as the input bythe users was in that form. This could correspond to two disclosures ofthe same concept in the information source. Alternatively, this couldcorrespond to disclosure of two different concepts in the sameinformation source.

FIG. 15 depicts a type of chart built by the system of the preferredembodiment of the present invention. In this instance, the system has atthe direction of the user generated a list of the information sourcesrelied upon in the chart building process—in this instance, separateitems of prior art. The bibliographic information stored as part of thereview process is organized as part of the chart, which itself can beordered alphabetically or chronologically, etc. This chart is also builtusing the Central District of California format, as can be seen by theline numbers on the left hand side of the page. Information of this typeis commonly required in expert reports or invalidity contentionsgenerated during the course of litigation in many jurisdictions, such asthe Eastern District of Texas.

FIG. 16 depicts another type of chart generated in accordance with anembodiment of the present invention. In this instance, the system—at thedirection of the user—has generated a chart that simply identifies inchart form the anticipatory (disclosing all claim concepts/limitations)references and viable combinations relied upon by the users for aparticular selected claim, in this case claim 1. With respect tocombinations under the heading § 103, only 2-way combinations aredepicted; however, the system can be directed to generate all of theviable 3-way, 4-way or 5-way, etc., combinations (and of course, othertypes of corresponding charts).

FIG. 17 depicts one exemplary type of data mining or data visualizationthat can be performed by the system of the present invention. In thisinstance, the system has generated a “strike chart.” For simplicitysake, this particular strike chart is limited to a single claim of asingle patent and only four information sources (e.g. prior artreferences). As one of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate, manymore claims and many more prior art references can be utilized in this(and other) forms of visualization.

With reference to FIG. 17, the user is alerted to the target patent byway of the title heading and is given the option of pulling up thepatent with the “read patent” link. The user may also open up specificinformation sources by clicking on the check boxes, which will take theuser not only to the data entered into the system, but the raw documentpreferably.

Each claim limitation 1[a] through 14[e] is separately broken out withits associated concepts. If desired, the user can read a specificlimitation by clicking on the corresponding link. In the rightwardcolumns, a check-box appears corresponding to specific informationsources that disclose that concept. For example, the “Goodall”information source discloses the concept “Cargo Load: vehicle cargo” and“Vehicle: motor vehicle”, but not “Vehicle: vehicle tip over condition.”That concept is only found in the Kyrstos information source. Using thistype of chart, the user with access sufficient to generate the chart mayquickly determine what references are actually disclosing, whichreferences are weak, where weak points in the data set exist andaccordingly what references will be crucial and what references will bemerely cumulative. For example, the user of the system can quickly seethat the Hagenbuch '835 reference is not disclosing any limitation notdisclosed in more robust information source. Based on this information,a user might decide to eliminate Hagenbuch from further consideration inthe project, all other factors being equal.

As stated above, once review of documents is under way the system can beused to perform logical analyses on the pool of reviewed documents,generate reports, and generate draft legal documents such asinfringement or invalidity contentions, claim charts and even draftreexamination requests based on a set of available templates. Forexample, the users of the system can generate draft invaliditycontentions into a template generally corresponding to the requirementsof the Eastern District of Texas. Perhaps a more typical type of reportwould be the familiar claim chart, which correlates the limitations of aclaim or claims to the disclosures of a document or documents.

Alternatively, queries can be performed on the database of the systemacross many different variables. For example, queries can be run basedon the type of document. In the context of unpatentability, for example,the system can be queried over only patents and printed publications.Alternatively, in the context of invalidity, documents describing publicuses (for example) or confidential documents can be queried. As anotherexample, queries to support many “what-if” scenarios can be run. Forexample, queries can be run using multiple “priority dates” of thetargeted patent documents. Other queries can be run using only certaintypes of invalidity or unpatentability references—for example, thosethat satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). In an infringementcontext, queries can be limited to document sources (for example targetcompanies' own websites or specifications), can be limited to aparticular type of infringement (direct, induced, contributory), or canbe limited to certain versions or models of accused products, amongother possibilities.

Other types of reports can also be generated. Reports can be generatedin the form of simple document counts—i.e., the numbers of documentsthat disclose particular concepts or limitations. Such reports can beemployed by the system users to guide further searching and analysis. Asnew documents are reviewed and updated, any report or chart can bere-generated to assist in tracking progress.

Based on the documents' disclosure and the review and analysis by thereviewers, the system can run various processes to assist in determiningthe “best” documents or combinations of documents for variouspurposes—infringement or invalidity/unpatentability. In the context ofinvalidity or unpatentability, the system can determine all of theanticipatory references for a claim or set of claims. Even anticipatoryreferences can be ranked using various optimization algorithms that areknown in the art.

As just one example, the system can prioritize documents that“expressly” disclose limitations over those documents that “inherently”disclose limitations. Likewise the system can prioritize documents thatqualify as 102(b) references over documents that only qualify as 102(e)references. The system can be instructed additionally to weigh orprioritize documents that disclose certain key limitations or conceptsexpressly, etc.

As a further example of a ranking algorithm to be employed, the systemcan be configured to rank or weigh concepts individually for documentsand relied-upon disclosures that are associated with concepts. Forinstance, as above with the “Goodall” information source, consider againthat Goodall discloses the concept “Cargo Load: vehicle cargo” and“Vehicle: motor vehicle”, but not “Vehicle: vehicle tip over condition.”As in the example, the concept of “Vehicle: vehicle tip over condition”is only found in the Kyrstos information source. Although Goodalldiscloses the “vehicle cargo” concept, further information can beassociated with this concept using a linked attribute referred to asStrength of Disclosure or Core Rating for the disclosure. Usingvariables to express how exact the disclosure of Goodall is for the“vehicle cargo” concept, further useful information can be captured forlater analysis.

In accordance with FIG. 18, consider the non-limiting example wherebythe Core Rating 1816 has three ranks, understanding that additionalranks are possible, may be desirable, may vary from case to case, andmay be specified by a user through the case management portal. With CoreRating ranks 1818 of (a) fully disclosed; (b) fairly disclosed; and (c)suggested by reference, the system can utilize the Core Ratings 1816 torank references identified as 102 and 103 references against a claim, oridentify the most useful information pertinent to a user query. Theconcept of inherency of disclosure might likewise be incorporated intothe system.

With respect to the illustration of different ratings and theirrelationships with concepts in FIG. 18, in the case of invalidity byanticipation, consider that a claim requires ten concepts. If a singleinformation source 1810 were found to teach each of the ten concepts ofa claim, the information source 1810 would be understood to anticipatethat claim. By applying the additional data provided by Core Ratings1816, 1822 for each of the ten concepts, the information sources 1810may be ranked. For example, an information source 1810 having sixconcepts 1816 each with a rank 1818 of “fully disclosed”, and theremaining four concepts necessary for the claim having the lesser rank1818 of “suggested by reference”, a particular information source 1810may be considered a more suitable anticipation information source thanan information source whereby four concepts had the secondary rank 1818of “fairly disclosed” and six concepts had the tertiary rank 1818 of“suggested by reference.” Using the subjective Core Rating 1816 for eachconcept, and a matching algorithm to determine whether an informationsource discloses the specified concepts of a claim, provides incrementalinsight into how information sources rank relative to one another.

In an alternative embodiment, the System Core Rating 1822 for eachconcept may be automatically applied by the system according to aBoolean or semantic match between the words of the concept and thedisclosure from the information source set forth by the user for theconcept. It is to be understood that the concept is represented bywords, and that additional words, including notes or other words ofguidance, may also be linked to each concept as an additional aid duringthe review stage. The additional guidance language associated with eachconcept may also be considered together or separately with the words ofthe concept itself for purposes of evaluating a Boolean or semanticmatch. By way of example only, FIG. 6A reflects a relationship betweenfields for a concept and its respective notes. In a further alternativeembodiment, there could be a User Core Rating 1816 (subjective) and aSystem Core Rating 1822 (objective based on Boolean and/or semantic wordmatch), to generate an Overall Core Rating 1814 for each concept 1812disclosed by an information source 1810. Many different variations ofhow to apply, adjust and establish Core Ratings for concepts arecontemplated.

Another approach to applying rating data for ranking information sourcesincludes a consideration of how many information sources disclose aparticular concept. For example, again with respect to the illustrationof ratings and concepts in FIG. 18, consider a set of 20 informationsources 1810, each disclosing several of a possible fifteen concepts1812. A concept 1812 disclosed by the fewest number of informationsources, or alternatively, with the fewest number of total disclosures(understanding that a concept may be disclosed more than once by anyinformation source), may be understood to be more important based on thelower frequency of its disclosure compared with other concepts. Further,although a concept may only be disclosed by information sources a smallnumber of times, the concept may only be associated with two claims of atwenty claim set. With this understanding, the concept may not beconsidered as important compared to a concept that is required by alltwenty claims of a twenty-claim set. Appropriate Concept Ratings 1824can be attributed to concepts based on some or all of the followingfactors 1826, among others: the number of claims specifying a concept atleast once, the total number of times a concept is specified by a claimor the entire claim set, the total number of disclosures of the conceptby information sources, and the total number of information sourcesdisclosing the concept at least once.

By characterizing a concept by a Concept Rating 1824 and characterizinga concept's disclosure by an information source 1810 as an aggregateCore Rating 1814, various algorithm-based rankings can be performedusing these ratings, with adjustments possible to emphasize theimportance of the various rating factors, to provide for relativerankings of the information sources in the context of anticipation andobviousness contentions. Applying the Concept and/or Core Rating valuesto anticipation and obviousness results output by the system can allowthe system to filter or identify the most appropriate informationsource, or combination of information sources, appropriate to meet theconcepts specified for a particular claim.

For example, information sources with a relatively high Core Rating(more instances with fully disclosed concepts and/or system core rating,yielding a higher overall core rating), may be considered moreappropriate for both anticipation and obviousness challenges. Aninformation source may also be perceived as more appropriate for aninvalidity challenge because its concept rating demonstrates that itdiscloses a particular concept that is rarely disclosed in otherinformation sources, contains a large number of instances of disclosuresof that rarely disclosed concept, and further that the particularconcept has a high frequency of appearing in particular target claims.Moreover, the system may reveal, via the Reference Ranking Module, thatthis particular rarely disclosed concept has a high overall core rating,because it either was marked as being “fully disclosed” (User CoreRating attribute) or has a high correlation with a matched disclosurefor the information source (System Core Rating), or both (Overall CoreRating). It should be appreciated that a user may find different ratingattributes to be more important depending upon the subject matter, theexpertise of a user evaluating an information source for disclosure,and/or the complexity of the claims and related concepts.

In another respect, a concept rating need not be an aggregate value, butrather may be represented by multiple separate values associated withthe frequency values discussed above. Discrete, Concept Ratingsub-values provide a mechanism for further differentiation in thevarious operating modules. For invalidity contentions, a crowd-sourcedprior art search may be initiated following a prior art review andcategorization using this system whereby a search is principallydirected to locate one or more concepts having a low number ofdisclosures of that concept(s) within sources and/or a low number ofsources disclosing the concept. Differentiation among the concepts forsearching purposes can be further delineated by considering how manyclaims recite the concept and further how frequently the concept islinked to claim limitations in one or more claims. An additional filterparameter for determining concepts to search, via the crowd-sourcedapproach or otherwise, may be based on the Overall Core Rating, UserCore Rating and/or System Core Rating for a concept.

Separate from the alternative embodiments using Concept Ratings and/orCore Ratings, the system can also generate comprehensive reportsregarding obviousness. Rather than generating all mathematicallypossible combinations of the reviewed documents—which for even amodestly sized database of 10 documents would grow prohibitivelylarge—the system may return only plausible combinations that provideclaim coverage within certain selected parameters. For example, theusers might query the system to generate all 2-way combinations based on102(b) art for claims 1, 3-5, 10, 13 and 20. Broader or narrowerparameters can be selected as desired.

Another type of useful data mining and visualization aid that the systemcan generate is the heat map. A heat map is well known generallyspeaking to those of skill in the field of data visualization and isoften used, for example, in securities trading to help users identifypotential opportunities in a market. Here, the system of the presentinvention uses this type of visualization—using colors from deep purpleto white hot—to represent the frequency or lack thereof of disclosurecovering claims, claim limitations and concepts. For example, in asituation where more references disclose a particular concept, the heatmap might display that fact to the user by a color associated with ahigher heat value. If a concept or claim or claim limitation has fewer(or no) disclosures from the information sources (e.g. prior artreferences) then the user is presented a lower heat value color. Thisheat map can also be run in accordance with the various experimentalsearches and reports discussed above. This allows users with sufficientaccess to very rapidly determine where potential weaknesses exist, sothat searching can be specifically directed thereto or project strategycan be otherwise adjusted.

It is also possible for the system to generate more sophisticatedreports that can take the form of more complex and complete documents.For example, if the system has been capturing the arguments andexplanations associated with disclosure of concepts in variousinformation sources along with motivation to combine information, thenthe system can generate draft reexaminations of patents and selectedclaims using selected items of prior art. While such a document shouldbe reviewed and later edited, a great deal of time can be saved in themechanics of drafting by utilizing the informational advantages of thesystem.

As stated herein, the system can track users as they enter data or usethe system. This can be done to ensure productivity. The system cantrack users by way of mouse-clicks or keyboard entry, etc., to monitoractivity level. The system also tracks what users uploaded data, imagesand made edits to concepts or the data in a specific field. This userinformation can be stored over time and optionally across projects.Users with sufficient access can access specialized menus, and featuresthat allow them to track, observe and review other users of the system.This tracking feature optionally can tie into the crowdsourcing aspectsof the system of the present invention.

Crowdsourcing is made possible by the cloud deployment of the system andits ability to support multiple users simultaneously. Typically, usersof the system might all be employed by the same law firm. In othersituations, users might span across several law firms tied together byway of a joint defense group. In these situations all of the users ofthe system would have access to attorney-client privileged and workproduct doctrine materials; however, they would be legally and ethicallybound to keep such information confidential. However, it is possible forthe system to create levels of users that would not have access suchprotected information. For example, a “bounty hunter” user level mightonly have the ability to upload prior art for others to review. Thesystem can provide, at the discretion of the case administrators, theability of third parties to register to use the system for that purpose.Such users could sign confidentiality agreements in exchange for access.

As the system tracks “bounty hunter” users they may develop over time atrack record of success in finding quality information sources. Suchusers may later be promoted to a higher level of user that would havethe ability not only to upload items of prior art, but also to enterdata into the system.

Higher levels of third party access can grant third party users higherlevels of rewards. For example, a bounty hunter might be granted a smallreward for uploading an item of prior art that was later reviewed byother users of the system. This would be an indication that the users ofthe system found this art relevant to the project. If however, thebounty hunter user were to upload an item of prior art that wasultimately included in a reexamination or in invalidity contentions, thereward could be higher. Several bounty hunters might share a reward, asin the instance where an information source was uploaded independentlyby several users or discovered independently by higher-level users.

The system can also track demerits for such users who waste the time ofother reviewers by, for example, inappropriately entering bibliographicinformation into the system or entering information sources that couldnot be prior art. After a certain level of demerit, a third party userof the system could be demoted from a higher level of access back downto a bounty hunter level of access or even denied access to the systemaltogether.

A higher-level third party user to the system might be paid on an hourlybasis to review informational sources, provided that a certain level ofefficiency is maintained. The system's ability to track mouse movementand clicks as well as keyboard entries, etc. can ensure that the thirdparty user is not scamming the system. Even higher levels of third partyaccess might allow such users to communicate with the caseadministrators or managers to receive direction or even to manage thelower level of users. Leveraging these features might enable themanagers of a project to effectively employ thousands of patentsearchers and data entry personnel at a fraction of their current costs.

The system also makes use of a secure billing system. The system canregister users from the case administrator level to the third partybounty hunters. The billing system can take credit cards and use thosecredit cards to receive payment for the user of the system, but alsopreferably to allow the managers of a particular project to pay thethird party users that work on the project.

Although the invention has been described and illustrated hereinprimarily in the context of patent claim analysis, one skilled in theart will appreciate that the concepts disclosed are further applicableto a variety of applications, some of which are specifically mentioned.Likewise, the figures including screenshots illustrate exemplary optionsfor a user interface, and which while described and illustrated asscreens or pages may be variously combined, modified, or otherwiseadapted for any environment, including display on desktop, portable,mobile and other devices, processed for audio presentation, etc.

The invention is often described with respect to functional modules.However, the disclosed functionality might be embodied in hardware,software, and/or a combination thereof, and could be offered as a web orcloud-based service, implemented on networked or dedicated servers, on amainframe, etc. In addition, disclosed modules might be varied incountless ways, for example combining functionality from multipledescribed modules into a single module, parsing out functionality from asingle module into multiple, or incorporating into a modulefunctionality not herein described in the context of a module. Thus,many variations are possible without departing from the scope of theinvention.

What is claimed is:
 1. A method for generating a search of informationsources based upon a correlation of core concepts between a first patentclaim and a second patent claim in a collaboration and analysis system,comprising: storing a plurality of information sources in a database;processing the first patent claim to derive a first set of one or moreclaim limitations; processing the first patent claim to assign a firstset of one or more core concepts based on at least one word, the firstset of one or more core concepts representing conceptual overlap acrossa plurality of claims of one or more patents in a patent family;processing the first patent claim to assign a first core concept of thefirst set of one or more core concepts to a first claim limitation ofthe first set of one or more claim limitations based upon an indicationof similarity of the first claim limitation to an analyzed claimlimitation to which the first core concept has been previously assigned;processing a second patent claim to derive a second set of one or moreclaim limitations; processing the second patent claim to assign a secondcore concept to a first claim limitation of the second set of one ormore claim limitations; processing the first core concept and the secondcore concept across at least the first patent claim and the secondpatent claim to determine a repeating core concept; and searching amongthe plurality of information sources for the repeating core conceptacross at least the first patent claim and the second patent claim. 2.The method of claim 1, further comprising: differentiating among aplurality of repeating core concepts to search among the plurality ofinformation sources based upon a total number of patent claimscontaining the respective repeating core concepts to determine amost-repeated core concept.
 3. The method of claim 1, wherein the stepof processing the second set of claim limitations to assign a second setof core concepts to the second set of claim limitations is based on anassociation between the first and second sets of claim limitations. 4.The method of claim 1, the similarity of the first claim limitation tothe analyzed claim limitation being indicated by a user.
 5. A method forranking the quality of a first information source of a plurality ofinformation sources with respect to a patent claim in a collaborationand analysis system, the first information source having a firstinformation disclosure, comprising: storing the plurality of informationsources in a database; associating a first set of one or more coreconcepts to a first patent claim; processing the first patent claim toderive a first set of one or more claim limitations; processing a secondpatent claim to derive a second set of one or more claim limitations;processing the first set of core concepts to assign a core rating toeach core concept based upon a precision of the first informationdisclosure of the first information source with respect to each coreconcept of the first set of core concepts; processing a ranking for thefirst information source to determine a core rating for each coreconcept of the first set of core concepts for the first set of claimlimitations; processing at least one association between a claimlimitation of the first set of claim limitations and a claim limitationof the second set of claim limitations; and processing the second set ofclaim limitations to assign a second set of core concepts to the secondset of claim limitations, wherein the second set of core concepts isbased on the first set of core concepts and the second set of coreconcepts is assigned to the second set of claim limitations based on theat least one association between the first and second set of claimlimitations.
 6. The method of claim 5, wherein the core ratings comprisea numerical value.
 7. The method of claim 6, wherein the numerical valueis assigned based upon a determination that the first informationdisclosure of the first information source with respect to the firstcore concept satisfies one of: 1) fully discloses the first coreconcept, 2) fairly discloses the first core concept, and 3) suggests thefirst core concept.
 8. The method of claim 7, wherein the determinationthat the first information disclosure of the first information sourcewith respect to the first core concept satisfies one of: 1) fullydiscloses the first core concept, 2) fairly discloses the first coreconcept, and 3) suggests the first core concept is made based upon anaverage of one or more disclosure ratings assigned to the firstinformation disclosure of the first information source with respect tothe first core concept by one or more users of the system.
 9. The methodof claim 8, wherein the average is weighted based upon a level of accessassigned to the one or more users of the system.
 10. The method of claim5, wherein the core ratings are objectively based upon an analysis of anextent of semantic correlation between words associated with the firstcore concept and words of the first information disclosure of the firstinformation source.
 11. A system for analyzing a first disclosure of afirst information source with respect to a first core concept of a firstpatent claim, comprising: a database for storing a plurality ofinformation sources and a plurality of core concepts of the first patentclaim; a plurality of electrical components comprising a controlledenvironment for providing a communication medium between a user and thedatabase, the plurality of electrical components including a processorfor processing the first patent claim to derive a first set of one ormore claim limitations, processing the first patent claim to assign afirst set of one or more core concepts, processing the first patentclaim to assign a first core concept to a first claim limitation of thefirst set of one or more claim limitations based upon an indication ofsimilarity of the first claim limitation to an analyzed claim limitationto which the first core concept has been previously assigned, processinga second patent claim to derive a second set of one or more claimlimitations, processing the second patent claim to assign a second coreconcept to a first claim limitation of the second set of one or moreclaim limitations, and processing the first core concept and the secondcore concept across at least the first patent claim and the second claimto determine a repeating core concept, wherein the plurality ofinformation sources are searched for the repeating core concept acrossat least the first patent claim and the second patent claim; an analysisinterface, forming a part of the communication engine, for correlatingdata of the system, inputs from a user, and the display of data incooperation with an analysis interface engine; and a communicationapplication for coordinating communication between a user device of theuser and the controlled environment, for accessing resources through thecontrolled environment.